this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
658 points (94.9% liked)

Fuck Cars

9762 readers
71 users here now

This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.

This community exists for the following reasons:

You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.

Rules

  1. Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.

  2. No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.

  3. Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.

  4. No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.

  5. No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.

  6. No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.

  7. No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.

Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 77 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 51 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (8 children)

This thing they call "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" has as much in common with Marx and Engels' idea of Communism as a Big Mac has with a plate of hummus.

Edit: western dengists, man.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Edit: western dengists, man.

Western maoists, every time... smh my head

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It's funny when the western supremacists themselves try to claim that supporting communist countries is a uniquely western phenomenon, when its the opposite, it's the US and its vassals demonizing Cuba, China, and the USSR.

The CPC has over 90 million members, every socialist country like Cuba and nearly every communist party on the planet supports and looks up to the CPC as a model for the 21st century. Even most non-communist global south countries look up to it.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is Marxism-Leninism applied to the PRC's present productive forces and material conditions. They have not reached Communism, but they are firmly on their way to full socialization of the economy. The only way you could think they have abandoned Communism as a goal is if you have never read Marx, Engels, or Lenin, and therefore have never studied Historical Materialism.

The reason it's painfully obvious that you haven't studied Historical Materialism is because you clearly believe Communism is something that develops through decree, not degree, that the goal of Communism is to immediately socialize all production. This is absurd, and Utopian. Marx believed Socialism to come after Capitalism because Capitalism turns itself into a status ripe for socialism as markets coalesce into few monopolist syndicates, ripe for central planning. If the productive forces aren't ready, then Communism can't be achieved without struggles.

In Question 17 of The Principles of Communism, Engels makes this clear:

Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.

In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

What happened in China, is that Mao tried to jump to Communism before the productive forces had naturally socialized themselves, which led to unstable growth and recessions. Deng stepped in and created a Socialist Market Economy by luring in foreign Capital, which both smoothed economic growth and eliminated recessions. This was not an abandonment of Communism, but a return to Marxism from Ultraleft Maoism.

Today, China has over 50% of the economy in the public sector. About a 10th of the economy is in the cooperative sector, and the rest is private. The majority of the economy is centrally planned and publicly owned! Do you call the US Socialist because of the Post Office? Absurd.

Moreover, the private sector is centrally planned in a birdcage model, Capital runs by the CPC's rules. As the markets give way to said monopolist syndicates, the CPC increases control and ownership, folding them into the public sector. This is how Marx envisioned Communism to be established in the first place! Via a DotP, and by degree, not decree! The role of the DotP is to wrest Capital as it socializes and centrally plan it, not to establish Communism through fiat.

Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism, and read Marx himself before you act like an authority without even understanding Historical Materialism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Marx believed Socialism to come after Capitalism because Capitalism turns itself into a status ripe for socialism as markets coalesce into few monopolist syndicates, ripe for central planning.

I'm sure I'm way out of my depth here, and it's been over a decade since I studied this stuff in school... But this seems incredibly naive? As we're seeing now, that environment is far more ripe for fascism, or some type of neo-feudalism.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago

The starting point for the Marxian analysis centers on the existing dominant forces of monopolistic industrial capitalism. Therefore socialist revolution still must move through capitalism by process of subordinating the ruling class to a proletarian state. As Cowbee pointed out, fascism is not a state absent capitalism, but rather mode of capitalism itself. Because of the inherent contradictions, we assume that any capitalist system already produces various quantities of fascism as a mechanism for maintaining superiority of the owner class.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I'm dramatically simplifying things for the sake of a Lemmy comment.

First, fascism is just Capitalism in decline, it isn't meaningfully separate from Capitalism itself.

Secondly, when I say that Marx believed Socialism to come after Capitalism because of Capitalism's mechanisms working towards monopolist syndicates ripe for planning, that doesn't mean Marx wasn't also revolutionary. Such central planning and socialism can't take place without revolution, because the proletariat needs to gain supremacy over Capital, which is impossible electorally.

Does that clear it up?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago

My favorite trope has to be western leftists confidently talking nonsense about China.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

sure man, the world's largest Marxist party, led by a man with a doctorate in Marxist studies, has abandoned Marxism. That's SO true boss.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago

This is like saying that Iran is following the exact system envisioned by Mohammad because Khamenei is a scholar or whatever.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

No you don't get it, 99 million members of the Communist Party of China don't actually understand Marxism. A guy who's lived his whole life under the dictatorship of capital is the only true arbiter of what real Marxism looks like.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago

errrrmm, actually all 1.4 billion citizens of the PRC are brainwashed and can't think for themselves. ever think about that, you dumb commie???

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 weeks ago

While this is true it is not because China has deviated from socialist theory, including that of Marx and Enfels. China is a dictatorship of the proletariat as described by Marx and Engels as the necessary precursor to communism. It is also taking a very specific strategy towards imperialism that involves special economic zones, or capitalism zones, in order to build productive forces while also coupling the well-being of imperialist countries to China's ability to produce.

Communism will never be achieved by a state and no state has ever expected to do so. The idea that any country ever could use a category error, it means a person doesn't understand the term at all as used by Marx a d Engels. It is, by definition, stateless, and could only happen after all states are eventually abolished. But again, being practical people, they expected this to happen through a long process of struggle with dictatorships of the proletariat being what socialists first formed and could use to overturn the capitalist order

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They literally don't have free healthcare or schools. I have a very close friend from China. It's a very capitalistic and conservative society from what I hear. Monopolies and conglomerates are rife.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This is completely false. If you're uninsured, a visit is less than ~5 USD per doctors visit, and about ~20 USD for a specialist visit.. If you're insured, as 95% of the population in China is, then visits are free. It also has a very low cost per capita, since public health is socialized, not privatized.

Primary school is completely free, and college has tuition fees just like any other country.

Got any more of "I heard it from a friend?", that people can upvote to affirm their racist biases?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago

Lord of Lemmy, what makes you think I am racist?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

The workers dont own the means of production. Its not communism

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Nobody said they achieved Communism, just that they are authentically working towards it through Socialism.

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is Marxism-Leninism applied to the PRC's present productive forces and material conditions. They have not reached Communism, but they are firmly on their way to full socialization of the economy. The only way you could think they have abandoned Communism as a goal is if you have never read Marx, Engels, or Lenin, and therefore have never studied Historical Materialism.

The reason it's painfully obvious that you haven't studied Historical Materialism is because you clearly believe Communism is something that develops through decree, not degree, that the goal of Communism is to immediately socialize all production. This is absurd, and Utopian. Marx believed Socialism to come after Capitalism because Capitalism turns itself into a status ripe for socialism as markets coalesce into few monopolist syndicates, ripe for central planning. If the productive forces aren't ready, then Communism can't be achieved without struggles.

In Question 17 of The Principles of Communism, Engels makes this clear:

Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.

In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

What happened in China, is that Mao tried to jump to Communism before the productive forces had naturally socialized themselves, which led to unstable growth and recessions. Deng stepped in and created a Socialist Market Economy by luring in foreign Capital, which both smoothed economic growth and eliminated recessions. This was not an abandonment of Communism, but a return to Marxism from Ultraleft Maoism.

Today, China has over 50% of the economy in the public sector. About a 10th of the economy is in the cooperative sector, and the rest is private. The majority of the economy is centrally planned and publicly owned! Do you call the US Socialist because of the Post Office? Absurd.

Moreover, the private sector is centrally planned in a birdcage model, Capital runs by the CPC's rules. As the markets give way to said monopolist syndicates, the CPC increases control and ownership, folding them into the public sector. This is how Marx envisioned Communism to be established in the first place! Via a DotP, and by degree, not decree! The role of the DotP is to wrest Capital as it socializes and centrally plan it, not to establish Communism through fiat.

Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism, and read Marx himself before you act like an authority without even understanding Historical Materialism.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I didnt say they werent working towards it tho. i said they arent communist and i listed obvious examples they are not distributing power and money equally nor horizontally

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They are led by Communists that are working towards Communism along Marxist lines. What do you mean when you say they aren't Communist? That they haven't achieved upper-stage Communism?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Not the commenter but tbh some see it as a continuation of Lenin's ideology which broke away from Marxist lines

Lenin started something like a reactionary coup of the concept, forming into a fundamental shift. Sure it can be explained by the situation if one wants to have justification for it

While Lenin claimed to apply Marxism, he introduced significant changes to diverge from Marx’s vision.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Lenin didn't break away from Marxism, he returned the broader Communist international to Marxism from opportunism and revisionism, and then applied Marxist analysis to his present conditions.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And when was a requirement for communism?

A stateless, classless, moneyless society. How can a class own something then?

Absolute nonsense.

Communism is from each according to their ability, to each according to their want.

And it’s a centuries long process.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Communism is from each according to their ability, to each according to their want.

I thought it was "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need"?

Wants and needs are often conflated but the outcomes of each phase would likely look incredibly different.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Neither are correct. Your phrase is correct, but that specifically refers to post-scarcity, Upper-Stage Communism, not Communism itself. Communism is essentially a global, fully socialized republic devoid of private property, after classes have been abolished and Capital finally fully wrested and incorporated into the public sector.

The "needs" of Upper-Stage Communism are also wants. It largely doesn't matter, Marx wasn't a Utopian, he didn't advocate for Socialism out of any moral reason, but by analyzing where Capitalism was developing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Wrong, and it's clear you read none of the links above. Especially this one: https://archive.ph/DwD1n

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not communist obviously, since there's still very much a state and class division. But socialist because the state primarily serves the workers, with the stated goal of striving towards communism.

Now whether it'll stay that way or not, we'll see. Deng's reforms have given liberals too much power after all; there seems to be an active class war happening in the Chinese state.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Not communist obviously

I find it's useful to select more descriptive terms than use the literal dozens of varying definitions of 'socialism' and 'communism'. The terms by themselves can be so vague that I can truthfully state this - "communism is the goal of communism!" A communist society, for example, is different from a communist party or a communist state (aka. Marxist–Leninist state), which are only parts of the communist movement and the communist school of thought. Obviously no-one looks at the PRC and sees a stateless, classless society, but that's an understandable (albeit condescending) interpretation of when people say "China is communist".

(Pinging @[email protected] as I'm also replying to their comment)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Workers own the means of production through the state, it's on its way to communism in a step later described as socialism after Marx and Engels deaths.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago

Not even after their deaths, Marx already acknowledged dictatorship of the proletariat as the practical way after first proletarian revolution, Paris Commune experiences.